The Supreme Court, in Mass. v. EPA, stated that the EPA must treat CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), as “pollutants” and then carry out an analysis to determine whether the increasing concentrations in atmospheric CO2 may reasonably be anticipated to endanger human health and welfare. The Court did not mandate regulation; rather it mandated that EPA go through an Endangerment Finding process.

EPA did so and on December 15, 2009 issued its ruling that CO2 and other GHGs must be regulated. This EPA finding and associated rulings were immediately challenged in the DC Circuit Court. The DC Circuit ruled in favor of EPA, but given the two dissents from the December 20, 2012 decision denying rehearing en banc, the matter will very likely go to the Supreme Court.

If allowed to stand, the very existence of EPA’s Endangerment Finding requires regulation that significantly increases U.S. fossil fuel and electricity prices–negatively impacting job creation as well as energy, economic and national security.

To many scientists this situation seems incredible given the ample evidence that EPA’s finding is grossly flawed. In its finding, EPA claimed with 90-99% certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. EPA bases its finding upon Three Lines of Evidence (LoE.)

Comments

So I guess the EPA is not aware that: (a) evidence of increased warming during the Middle Ages was removed from the hockey stick graph, (b) a preponderance of temperature measuring devices are placed in areas where they are likely to record abnormally high temperatures, (c) the earth has been coolling for the last 16 years, and (d) solar activity has a great deal to do with "climate change?"

The whole global warming nonsense is a hoax for the ignorant & ill informed. It's designed to panic low information voters into accepting U.N. Agenda 21. If you don't know what this evil piece of work is, google it. It's pure evil!

Not a problem, EPA will just go back to the 1997 IPCC report to provide the data for their endangerment finding like they did in their first regulation. They certainly don't want to upset the apple cart by conducting real scientific studies to support a regulation; it might demonstrate the opposite of what they want to control.

Stop wasting your time arguing science or logic. This is about PEOPLE control, not climate control. The ultimate regulation will come sometime in the future when the EPA will mandate the final solution….kill a few billion people, this will surely lessen the environmental impact of humans.

"The Supreme Court, in Mass. v. EPA, stated that the EPA must treat CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), as “pollutants” and then carry out an analysis to determine whether the increasing concentrations in atmospheric CO2 may reasonably be anticipated to endanger human health…" I guess the Mass. court did an indepth analysis of the deleterious effect of GHGs, especially the predominant one, WATER VAPOR. Inhaling water vapor is truly a health hazard. CO2 on the other hand is really dangerous. Without it there would be no life of any form on this planet. The earth would look like the moon. That woiuld probably thrill the EPA and all the left wing wacko environmentalists.